Kant "so confused"

After reading parts of the book, I still really do not know what its about. I just found it very confusing to read and by far the hardest material yet. I enjoyed reading about the math section on how pure math is possible. You can tell by just this book that he is all about the sciences. I dont think that when it comes down to the science section that there could be any right or wrong answer, with how he is trying to prove metaphysics.

Kant "Theological"

Kant does seem to believe in a higher power. He creates this third transcendental idea called the Theological idea, which he finds the most important idea. He believes that with "pure reason" you can believe in a perfect being. He said that this definitely did not start by experience. He believes that it starts with an idea. I would have to agree. There is not particular way to know if God really exists, because we cannot just ask him (obviously). Anyways he thinks you start off with making an hypothesis. I know that I believe in God because I was brought up to believe in him, but I wouldn't dare to ask questions or experiment. I actually find it comforting believing that there is a higher, more perfect power to look up to and pray to.

Kant "Psychological"

"If space and the appearances in it are something existing outside us, then all the criteria of experience outside our perception can never prove the actuality of these objects outside us," said Kant on page 73. This quote is saying that that if something really exists that we can not prove it to be true if it is outside of our bodies. We cannot perceive something outside of our surroundings. They Psychological idea that Kant speaks about is done by experience or experimenting. Kant is conscious of his body, appearance, and his soul. He said that space could be absolutely nothing but a for of his sensibility.

Kant- Critique page 75-82

Kant says, "....If we, as is commonly done, represent to ourselves the appearance of the sensible world as things in themselve, if we assume the principles of their combination as principles universally valid of things in themselves and not merely of experience, as is usually, nay, without our critique, unavoidably done, there arises an unexpected conflict which never can be removed in the common dogmatic way; because the thesis as well as the antithesis can be shown by equally clear, evident, and irresistable proofs-for I pledge myself as to the correctioness of all these proofs- and reason therefore perceives that it is divided against itself, a state at which the skeptic rejoices, but which must make the critical philosopher pause and feel ill at ease." When I read this paragraph, I thought of it as a great way to end my series of posting. He goes on to say how when philosohpers write they must make sure not to sound like they are lying or contradicting. After reading 4 philosophers and they all contradict it is hard to say who is to beleive. What he talks about for a great deal of his book later and in the conclusion is about critique. In today's world we are critiqued as well. As college students, we get critiqued by our way of writing of papers, or comments etc. Philosphers must have also been critiqued which adds a whole new dynamic of what must have influenced then to write what they wrote based on what they were feeling.

kant- space and time

Kant says, "When I speak of objects in time and in space, it is not og things in themselves, of which I know nothing, but of things in appearance, i.e. of experience, as a particular way of cognizing objects which is only afforded to man." He then says, "Objects of the sense therfore exist only in experience, whereas to give them a self-subsisting existence apart from experience or prior to it is merely to represent to ourselves that experience actually exists apart from experience or prior to it." This section made me think of a few things. First of all time. People say like from the beginning of time, so what is the beginning of time? The first time we used a watch or calendar?, the first time of humans? the first time of earth? Either way, these are limits. If there is a beginning to something that means there is a limit. The opposite would be if the earth was always here and then no body knows the time or how old eveyrthing is. We can guess all we want but we will never know.

Kant- the pyschological ideas- page 69-71

In this section Kant is explaining how our mind cognizes things. He says that "pure reason requires us to seek for every predicate of a thing its own subject, and for this subject which is itself necessarily nothing but predicate, its subject, and so on indefinitely (or as far as we can reach). This section made me think a lot. Have you ever thought about something and just wanted to know everything about it? What is stopping us? The fact that what we see and perceive is basically everything that we know about a subject. For us to learn more we have to go out of our way and learn it. How come our mind just can't let us know that the sky is blue for a certain reason? This section started bringing way out there ideas to my brain but that is why i decided to blog about it. Another thing I was thinking about while reading was haven't you ever wished you can experience everything. Or like hear everything that has ever been said. There is so much out there that we much go seek and unless we do it we would never learn.

Kant- how is pure natural science possible?

Kant says, nature is the existence of things, so far as it is determined according to universal laws. He says that the nature of things in themselves are neither a priori nor a posteriori. He says that things with the nature or things with experience are a priori. Things such as physics, mathematics, and substance. Kant asks this, "how can we cognize a priori that things as objects of experience necessarily conform to law?" He answers, "...whenever an event is observed, it is always referred to some antecedent, which it follows according to a universal rule; or else, everything of which experience teaches that it happens must have a cause. This section really made me think about Hume's book and his section on miracles and how they are impossible to occur.

Kant- page 31-35

Kant says, "Hence we may at once dismiss as easily foreseen but futile objection, "that by our admitting the ideality of space and time the whole sensible world would be turned into mere illusion." Kant says that the ideas of space and time can be explained as illusios to our mind. He says that space can be regarded as phantasms to our brain. It is true how does our brain see 3-dimentional? We do not set our brain to a setting to do so, it does it all by itself. The other part of this is time. We tell time, count time, plan time etc. What is time? It is merely a setting. It is just an agreement as is language and math. I guess we can then say that time is a priori. Time is something that everyone knows and we learn how to tell time at a very young age. Imagine if time was unknow and there were no such thing as clocks and calendars, I think the world would be very much chaotic, don't you?

Kant- how is pure mathematics possible?

In Kant's book, in the section of how is pure mathematics possible, Kant explains how mathematics is a priori. He says that it can be based on tuition. Kant does well with proving his point. In ways I agree ith Kant. It is intuitive to say 2+2=4. It is a very basic form of math, that we learned in kindergarten. If you are asked 2+2=?, after 15 years of knowing the correct answer, one will be able to intuitively answer this correctly. Kant says this is true for a few things. Mathmatics, Geometry and also some laws in nature which have not yet been disproven. Things like gravity. We do not wake up every morning and hope that our feet will stick on the ground. It is intuitive that while getting out of bed, putting our feet on the ground, and standing up, we will stick to the floor and be able to walk and ocntinue to walk and do as we please. It is intuitive that we will not float. These re some ideas that Kant describes as a priori.

Kant "Cosmological"

Wow! So to me, i find Kant so difficult to read. I have no idea what he is trying to say half of the time. But as far as cosmological ideas go, correct me if im wrong, this is what i understood from it. Cosmogical ideas are the ideas about the world and universe. It is one of the arguments Kant uses against metaphysics. He says that every thesis has an antithesis ( kinda confused about this). Kant says that when the thesis is false, that means the same for the antithesis. In this book, he brings up four ideas/ thesis and along with them an antithesis. Whatever is held within space and time, is also held generally by the anti thesis. I just dont' understand this guy. AHHHH!!!!

Kant "Natural Science"

Kant believes that we can only find natural science possible if we look at nature as objective natural laws. These laws help us understand our surroundings through space and time. Kant says that every effect has some type of cause. I must agree with Kant that natural science is synthetic. You must experience the cause and effect.

Kant "math"

So in the beginning of the book, Kant talks about analytic and synthetic. Since I am a math major, I found the part on math the most interesting. Kant goes on and describes math a synthetic a priori. I am actually kinda confused by this. To me you can observe math but to really understand it I think you need to have hands on experience. Yes you can believe someone when they say that 1+3=4, but truely, without explaining it, one would not understand why. By showing someone on a numberline (as demonstrated in class) you can say that if you start at 1 and move three more numbers to the positive side, then you will end up at four. Someone could simply remember this equation, but by memorizing it they would not be able to see that 4 - 1=3 or that 4 -3=1. So I am not really sure if i agree with Kant that math is just observed.

kant-every creatureeee

“….which is to find out the natural ends intended by this disposition to transcendent concepts in our reason, because everything that lies in nature must be originally intended for some useful purpose (Pg. 95).” I really like this ending quote. It is amazing to think that there must be a reason for every single thing that exists in nature. Think about all of the things that exists! Every single one must have some distinct purpose in life, and it could be a mystery to us forever as to what it is. Every rock, every leaf, every bug, every type of animal must all have their very own part to play in this world. And we as humans run the world, not thinking twice about killing these things that make the world go round, when I’m sure it has never been thought about how much good they do our Earth, and how every life is vital. Lol, ok I sound like a nature freak, but it’s really cool how everything in existence has its own unique purpose, because I mean it must have a purpose, otherwise it wouldn’t have been created. But I mean some things I just think about, and I’m like what could really be the point of having this in our world, such as like, oh I don’t know a skunk? Ha hA, but seriously I don’t know of a single good purpose they serve us rather than smelling up our world, but I’m sure there is some crucial purpose of a skunk. Like the movie the Butterfly effect, without one little missing detail in our world, things could be so different…Who knows, without skunks and other random animals, maybe the world wouldn’t be as we know it. ..

Kant- Cause & eFfEct is COOLLLL

“..But this determination of the cause to causal action must likewise be something that took place or happens; the cause must have begun to act, otherwise no succession between it and the effect could be thought. Otherwise the effect, as well as the causality of the cause, would have always existed…(pg.78).” This is a good thought. I have never looked at the whole cause and effect thing this way, but it makes a lot of sense. It never occurred to me that in order for something to be caused there had to be an even that caused it, and in order for an effect there had to be the event that caused the caused and then due to that event the effect then takes place according to which ever universal law of nature it follows. But here there is just so much that takes place before the actual whole things happens, it’s crazy. And if the event never occurred to make the cause take place then the effect would have never happened, which means then this whole particular process would have always existed, because then there would have been no thing, or cause, that had to start and stop at a certain point in order to begin the whole cause and effect reaction, it would just naturally take place. Wow…interesting..

Kant-originsSsS

“For how can we make out by experience whether the world is from eternity or had a beginning, whether matter is infinitely divisible or consists of simple parts? Such concepts cannot be given in any experience, however extensive, and consequently the falsehood either of the affirmative or the negative proposition cannot be discovered by this touchstone (Pg.75).” SO for once I agree with a statement of Kant’s. Our experiences began to occur since the day we were born. Since our births we have experienced different thing and those occurrences, for the most part, have remained with us throughout our lives. Any of our first memories only date back so far, even our great great great grandparents have really old memories that may have been passed down over the years.. But obviously none of those memories consist of the birth of the world. None of us have ever experienced such a huge event. We have books that tell us how we got to where we are today, and the influential people who were mainly responsible in helping us get there, but nothing about the very beginning of humans and the earth. How do we know what’s in the books is even true? How do we know that really was the beginning of civilization and religion and what not? We don’t, we just put faith into it because it’s all we have. But no experiences of any single person can tell us about the world, whether it is from eternity or it began on a specific day….I think it’s crazy how were all here on Earth together, making our lives work in a cycle, everything is so set in place, and no one has any clue as to how we got here…

Kant- PerMaNenCE

“But permanence can never be proved of the concept of a substance as a thing in itself, but only for the purposes of experience (Pg.71).” Kant is just not my favorite person. AS if his writing is not confusing enough to try and understand, he makes it contradictable and wrong, in my opinion. Permanence is perpetual or continued existence. If a substance, a thing, is experienced then it would be impossible to be anything other than permanent. How can Kant say that permanence can not be proved of it? If it was experienced then it is proved, because the object will not change over time or in the light of new eyes, it is permanent, no matter how you look at it, the concept of a substance will always remain as you have experienced it. Even if one has not experienced it, as for Kant says but only for the purposes of experience, the permanence still remains. For example, you do not need to encounter the Appalachian Mountains in order for there to be a concept of permanence in relevance to them. They are on a map, others have witnessed them, you have seen them on tv perhaps in a movie. Point blank, you know they are there and they are permanent, even though the personal experience never occurred.

Kant- experiences

“But experience teaches us what exists and how it exists, but never that it must necessarily exist so and not otherwise (Pg. 35).” During this part of the book, Kant is trying to justify his belief that nature can neither be a priori or a posteriori. I am unsure of my feelings on if nature is in fact one or the other or neither. However, this reason for why nature is not a posteriori is not sufficient enough for me. Kant says that experiences teach us how things exist, right? SO then how can he say that does not mean it necessarily exist so? Obviously, it does because if it has been experienced it must exist. Perhaps the outcome may change of nature, and the experience may be altered at another time, but if one experience had occurred one way than it is in fact so a possibility to occur, maybe even again. Kant makes no sense with this quote, it is a major contradiction. If experience teaches us, than how can he say what we experienced doesn’t necessarily exist? It must exist if it happened, and we learned from it???....

Kant-weirdddoooo

To begin with I would like to make it known how much I dislike reading Kant. This book is not as much as an easy reader as the others. I find myself lost every other line and unsure of what Kant is saying all the time. Anyway I think here Kant is speaking about our judgments and how they are affected by our senses and understanding of things. “The appearance depends upon senses, but the judgment upon the understanding; and the only question is whether in the determination of the object there is truth or not (Pg. 31).” So when perceiving an object, thoughts come into your head about the object right? Your perceive its qualities, its shape, if it has one, its odor, its durability, its color, and just thoughts you have about that object, maybe it even brings up memories. But the things that are thought about this object all stem from the beginning. First you must understand the object, then you sense it, then you make judgments based on all the understanding you have conquered throughout the years on this sole object. It’s strange how much thought goes into seeing something and then having thoughts about it…and it is unknown as to whether it is even true or not…

Hume- section IV- skeptical thoughts

In this section of skeptical thoughts, Hume is explaining the operations of the human mind's understanding. Hume says human reason can be divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas is like geometry, algebra and arithmetic. Things like 2+2=4 and 4 is half of 8. All of those ideas are relations of one another. Matters of fact is different. Matters of fact is like saying that the sun will rise everyday. When the sun rises, it gives off light and heat. Matters of fact can also be described as cause and effect. Because something happens, an effect occurs. Cause and effect is learned by experience. It is like in a game of pool. Because you hit all of the pool balls on the table with the que ball, all of the other balls that were hit scattered all over the pool table. Later on Hume says, "No object ever discovers, by the qualities which appear to the senses, either the causes which produced it, or the effects which will arise from it; nor can our reason, unassisted by experience, ever draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact." This is crazy how he states that nothing that we know in life can ever draw an inference concerning our real existence. I think about life all the time. Things like how we got here, why we got here, what we are supposed to be doing. It is like questions you always wanted answered, yet there are no true answers out there.

Hume-Section XII- part 1 of the academical or sceptical philosophy

A little later into this section, Hume focuses on aspects of primary and secondary qualities. He says that universally man can detect secondary qualities right off the bat. When someone is asked, is this hard or soft? Is his black or white? Is this a triangle or circle? These ideas can be known by use of the senses. The mind perceives the qualites of these objects without knowing any other information. If someone draws a triangle and says what is this?, the answer will be a triangle (unless this person has never been introduced to a triangle before). Hume says, "...if it be a principle of reason, that all sensible qualities are in the mind, not in the object". That statement is very interresting. It is like someone made up a word, let's say soft. Then they said soft things can be described as fluffy, comfortable, nice, smooth or mushy. Then they said pillows are soft or cashmere is soft and then that idea stuck and has just been passed on until the present time. Let's just say instead of the word soft meaning all those words, hard is the word that means fluffy, comfortable, nice, smooth or mushy. Everything would be opposite. Soft and hard are just names tacked onto objects because somebody decided that is what those words mean.

Hume- section VI- probability

In this section on Hume's book, he is discussing probability. He says that probability is different from chance. He says that an example of probability can be on a die. If someone drew a mark on four sides of a die( the same mark) and then drew a different mark that was on the other two sides, it is more probable that the first mark would show up as a result more than the other because there is more of them on the die. He also says that since fire has always burned wood, if you were take a piece of wood and try to light it on fire, the wood will probably catch on fire. When I was reading this section I was thinking about how he said chance is not probability and no body can predict your chances. Chances is also like luck. In today's world a lot of people beleive in luck. I know I do. Whether you say you are lucky or unlucky, you are still going against an impossible prediction. When you think about gambling and the lotto, it's crazy because you put in so much money and you are not guarenteed to win anything that night. It is a possibility that you can just lose and lose and lose and not win ever. I think it is crazy how so many people make choices based on their luck, when really when you think about it luck does not exist. Only probablity exists.

Hume "Reason of Animals"

In this chapter, Hume start off talking about how animals are similar to us because they have the circulation of blood as we do. He explains how no matter what type of animals there is some time of blood circulation. He then goes on to explain how animals learn things. I would have to agree that animals gain knowledge by experience, instinct and observation, just like humans do. They start off with instinct, just like humans. Somethings come naturally to them. For instance, a bird, which Hume describes at the end of the chapter, knows how to build a nest from natural instinct and how to eat. Birds learn how to fly observing their parents. After they observe for a while, they learn to fly by experience. This is exactly how babies learn to walk or how adolescence learn to drive a car. I think what this chapter is trying to explain to us is that animals have the same ways of learning as we do.

Hume "probability"

I was reading Hume's section on Probability and I found it interesting how it relates to everyday life. If there are 8 cards that consist of the follow: 4 -Aces, 2 -Kings, 1- Queen, and 1- Jack, the probability of you picking one of the Aces is a very good chance because there are more of that kind of card than the rest. This goes for many things in life. One example that Hume used was that in Europe all of the countries in January have frost on the ground. This is true because of the weather. But lets consider this thing called "global Warming".. one of the days may be warmer and there may be no frost. This makes the outcome for frost less probable than before but it still is more likely to occur than the no frost days. Some things in life as Hume says we can tell what the cause and effect are going to be such as a fire, it will light up and will burn, but there are other things that we can not make a call on. For example, drugs effect people differently. Some make do nothing for one person while the other person is hallucinating and breaking out in a sweat. You can never tell how something like drugs will effect someone. "We transfer the past to the future, in order to determine the effect, which will result from any cause, we transfer all the different events, in the same proportion as they have appeared in the past, and conceive one to have existed a hundred time, for instance, another ten times, and another once. As a great number of views do here concur in one event, they fortify and confirm it to the imaginations... which we call belief..."